Harvey v Phillips [1956] HCA 27

Harvey v Phillips [1956] HCA 27

The facts determined by the Supreme Court must be accepted; plaintiff was considered to have given authority to counsel to settle, authority was not limited or withdrawn, and defendants' counsel had no reason to doubt its validity. Thus, no grounds for court intervention to set aside the settlement; the appeal must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Emily Joan Harvey; Respondent/defendant: Coralie Ngarita Phillips; Respondent/defendant: David Rossel
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment in High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Authority of Counsel, Compromise of Actions, Damages for Negligence, Consent Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Torts Authority of Counsel Compromise of Actions Damages for Negligence Consent Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emily Joan Harvey

Appellant/plaintiff

Coralie Ngarita Phillips

Respondent/defendant

David Rossel

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel exceeded authority in compromising the action
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was bound by the compromise despite alleged lack of authority
  3. 3 Whether the court has discretion to set aside a compromise agreed within actual authority

Ratio Decidendi

The facts determined by the Supreme Court must be accepted; plaintiff was considered to have given authority to counsel to settle, authority was not limited or withdrawn, and defendants' counsel had no reason to doubt its validity. Thus, no grounds for court intervention to set aside the settlement; the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.